CAR_Public/050216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 16, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 33

                          Headlines

AIRGATE PCS: GA Court Yet To Rule on Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
ALZARE LLC: NJ Man Files Fraud Suit Over Penis Enlargement Pills
BIG SAVE: Recalls 12,000 Baby Walkers Because Of Injury Hazard
BISSELL HOMECARE: Recalls 750T Cleaners For Electrocution Risk
CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated

CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuits
CHARLESTON AREA: Uninsured Initiate Price-Gouging Lawsuit in WV
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Shareholders Seek Review of Suit Settlement
CROSS COUNTRY: FL Suits Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
FOREST LABORATORIES: Named in Biovail Tiazac Antitrust Lawsuit

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: To Seek Dismissal of MD Shareholder Lawsuits
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
GENESIS MICROCHIP: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
GLOBUS MEDIA: FDA Warns Consumers To Avoid Home-Use Test Kits
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Amended Stock Suit

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Trial in NV Racketeering Suit Set Sept. 2005
MYLAN LABORATORIES: Seeking Dismissal of PA Shareholder Lawsuit
NASSDA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for CA Securities Lawsuit
NEW JERSEY: Dam Owners Are To Blame For Burlington County Floods
NORTH SHORE: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For Consumer Fraud

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NY
SIEMENS MEDICAL: Reaches $14.4M Settlement For Suit Over Bonuses
STIHL INC.: Recalls 45,000 Multi-Task Tools Due To Injury Hazard
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
THOMSON CONSUMER: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Ask Judge For More Money

TRANE AND AMERICAN: Recalls 18,200 Heating Units For Fire Hazard
UNITED STATES: Law Firms Launch Securities Litigation Web Site
UNITED STATES: MassMutual Applauds Passage Of S.5 Reform Bill
UNITED STATES: Study Reveals Securities Settlements On The Rise
VIOXX LITIGATION: OH Resident Files Suit V. Drug's Manufacturers

WAL-MART STORES: Lawsuit Lodged Over Defective Bicycles in CA


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                New Securities Fraud Cases

ATHEROGENICS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files CA Securities Suit
DIRECT GENERAL: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TN
HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
OFFICEMAX INC.: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL

PFIZER INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
SIPEX CORPORATION: Sheperd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in CA

                          *********

AIRGATE PCS: GA Court Yet To Rule on Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia has yet to rule on Airgate PCS, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against the
Company and:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Wiesel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

In May 2002, putative class action complaints were filed,
seeking class certification and alleging that the prospectus
used in connection with the secondary offering of Company stock
by certain former stockholders of iPCS, a former subsidiary of
the Company, on December 18, 2001 contained materially false and
misleading statements and omitted material information necessary
to make the statements in the prospectus not false and
misleading.  The alleged omissions included:

     (i) failure to disclose that in order to complete an
         effective integration of iPCS, drastic changes would
         have to be made to the Company's distribution channels,

    (ii) failure to disclose that the sales force in the
         acquired iPCS markets would require extensive
         restructuring and

   (iii) failure to disclose that the "churn" or "turnover" rate
         for subscribers would increase as a result of an
         increase in the amount of sub-prime credit quality
         subscribers the Company added from its merger with
         iPCS

On July 15, 2002, certain plaintiffs and their counsel filed a
motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
Subsequently, the court denied this motion without prejudice and
two of the plaintiffs and their counsel filed a renewed motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On
September 12, 2003, the court again denied that motion without
prejudice and on December 2, 2003, certain plaintiffs and their
counsel filed a modified renewed motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On August 17, 2004 the court granted the plaintiff's motion.
Pursuant to a consent scheduling order agreed to by the parties,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on October 15, 2004.  As did the original complaints
filed in these actions, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that
the Company's registration statement and prospectus relating to
the December 2001 offering misrepresented and/or omitted adverse
facts regarding the anticipated effects of the Company's
acquisition of iPCS.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts that the registration
statement/prospectus was false and misleading in certain other
respects not previously alleged.  The legal claims asserted in
the Consolidated Complaint remain the same as those in the
original complaints, i.e. the registration statement/prospectus
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  In addition, the class that lead plaintiffs seek to
represent remains the same, and the named defendants remain the
same.

Defendants' responses to the Consolidated Complaint were due on
or before December 17, 2004.  In the event that any defendant
moves to dismiss, lead plaintiffs were to serve their opposition
by January 21, 2005, and defendants' reply briefs are due on or
before February 22, 2005.  On December 30, 2004, defendants
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The lead
plaintiffs have not yet responded to the motions to dismiss,
which have not yet been ruled upon by the court and remain
pending.

The suit is styled "In Re: Airgate PCS, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-01291-JOF," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
under Judge J. Owen Forrester.

Representing the defendants are:

     (a) David Lewis Balser, McKenna Long & Aldridge, 303
         Peachtree Street, N.E. One Peachtree Center, Suite
         5300, Atlanta, GA 30308-3201, Phone: 404-527-4000, E-
         mail: dbalser@mckennalong.com;

     (b) Howard K. Coates, Jr., Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486,
         Mail: 561-361-5000

     (c) David W.T. Daniels, David DeBold, John C. McMillan,
         Eric E. Sneider, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 1050
         Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306,
         Phone: 202-955-8500

     (d) James David Dantzler, Jr., J. Timothy Mast, Troutman
         Sanders LLP, Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
         Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-885-
         3314, Fax: 404-962-6799, E-mail:
         david.dantzler@troutmansanders.com or
         tim.mast@troutmansanders.com

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

      *  Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

      *  Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

      *  Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

      *  Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

      *  Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

      *  Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


ALZARE LLC: NJ Man Files Fraud Suit Over Penis Enlargement Pills
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey man has filed a false advertising lawsuit against
Alzare LLC a maker of herbal penis enlargement pills, alleging
the medicine does not fulfill its promises, according to the
plaintiff's attorney, Reuters reports.

The suit along with two others, which have been filed since last
year in Colorado and Ohio that accuses manufacturers of herbal
dietary supplements, VigRx and Enzyte, of falsely claiming to be
able to add substantial length and girth to a man's penis are
all seeking class action status and claim to represent more than
1 million total plaintiffs.

In the latest case, which was filed on January 21 in New Jersey
state court against Alzare LLC of Boca Raton, Florida and chief
operating officer Scott Hammond, plaintiff Michael Coluzzi
claimed he paid $59.95 for a 30-day supply of Alzare pills but
"experienced no increase in penis size," and then was unable to
collect a promised refund from the manufacturer afterward.

Mr. Coluzzi's attorney, Stephen DeNittis told Reuters, many men
had been taken in by dubious claims that the product would add
up to 3 inches (7.5 cm) to their penises by "very, very
convincing" advertising, such as infomercials featuring doctors
and porn stars. Mr. DeNittis adds, "Males, for whatever reason,
may be susceptible because of what they feel they lack. It was
so believable (infomercials) I confirmed with an expert (that
the claims were false) before I filed the lawsuit. They said
they had done medical studies proving that it works."

The suit states that ads for Alzare tablets, comprised of
ginseng, yohimbe bark, L-arginine and other ingredients,
guaranteed results within a week and claimed a 95 percent
success rate in the more than 100,000 men who have used it.
However, last year, the Center for Science in the Public
Interest filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission
saying the maker of Enzyte had not backed up its claims with
science.

Although thousands of complaints have been registered with local
government agencies and the Better Business Bureau, few lawsuits
have been filed because the companies appear to be "judgment
proof," according to Mr. DeNittis. He also told Reuters, "They
don't have enough assets for plaintiffs to recover, and some of
the defendants are fly-by-night -- they close up shop after they
get sued."

All three lawsuits claim that plaintiffs were unable to contact
the companies for guaranteed refunds after spending hundreds of
dollars for the penis enhancers.


BIG SAVE: Recalls 12,000 Baby Walkers Because Of Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Save International Corp., of Los Angeles, California is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 12,000 Baby Walkers.

The walkers fit through a standard doorway and are not designed
to stop at the edge of a step. Additionally, these walkers can
tip-over. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or
killed.

Only Big Save baby walkers with model numbers 9026, 9028, 9090,
90110 and 90111 are included in this recall. The model number is
printed as the final digits on a bar code number and may appear
on the front or back of the walker. Each walker has six caster
wheels and comes in various colors light green, pink and blue.

Manufactured in Taiwan, the walkers were sold at all toy and
juvenile product stores nationwide for between $15 and $25.
Model 9026 walkers were sold from June 1998 through December
2002 and all other models were sold from December 2003 through
December 2004.

Stop using the recalled walkers immediately and return the
walkers to the retailer where purchased to receive a refund.

Consumer Contact: Call Big Save International Corp. at
(800) 626-9393 between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday.


BISSELL HOMECARE: Recalls 750T Cleaners For Electrocution Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
BISSELL Homecare Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 750,000 BISSELL upright carpet deep
cleaners.

The carpet cleaner's metal upper handle can pose an electric
shock hazard to consumers. BISSELL has received six reports of
consumers receiving shocks from the unit.

The recalled upright carpet deep cleaners have an open handgrip,
a partially metal handle and come in a variety of colors. The
word "BISSELL" is printed on the front of the unit. The recalled
carpet cleaners have date codes beginning with 01, 02, 03 or 04
and include the following models:

     (1) PowerLifterr Plus (model number 1620)

     (2) PowerSteamerr ClearViewr (model numbers 1692, 1692-1,
         1692-R)

     (3) Power Steamerr (model numbers 1685, 1693, 1693-R, 1693-
         W, 1694, 1694-1, 1694-R)

     (4) Power Lifterr (model number 1694-3)

     (5) Rubbermaid X-tra-LiftT (model 9E00)

The date codes and model numbers are printed on a label on the
bottom of the unit. Cleaners with the model number and date
codes listed above that are marked "Inspected" on or near the
label are not included in the recall.

Manufactured in the United States and Mexico, the cleaners were
sold at all major discount, appliance and department stores
nationwide from January 2001 through December 2004 for between
$100 and $145.

Consumers should stop using the carpet cleaners immediately and
contact BISSELL for the location of the nearest service center
to receive a free inspection and if necessary, repair.

Consumer Contact: Call BISSELL toll-free at (866) 860-2392
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the
BISSELL Web site: http://www.BISSELL.com.


CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio consolidated the securities class actions filed against
Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
under the caption "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal
Securities Litigation"

Since July 2, 2004, 10 purported class action complaints have
been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's securities,
asserting claims under the federal securities laws (collectively
referred to as the "Cardinal Health federal securities
actions").  All of these actions have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
These cases include:

     (1) Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         575),

     (2) Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         579),

     (3) E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         597),

     (4) David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (04 CV 598),

     (5) Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         604),

     (6) John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         635),

     (7) Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 636),

     (8) Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.
         (04 CV 849),

     (9) The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et
         al. (04 CV 831) and

    (10) First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 911)

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as October 24, 2000
and ending as late as July 26, 2004 and allege, among other
things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial
results, prospects and condition.

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material
misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by the Company
in connection with its acquisition of Bindley Western
Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor International, Inc. in 2003.
The alleged misstatements relate to the Company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the Company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, among
other matters.  The alleged misstatements are claimed to have
caused an artificial inflation in the Company's stock price
during the proposed class period.  The complaints seek
unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the
defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On December 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities
actions were consolidated into one action and on January 26,
2005, the Court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead
plaintiff in this consolidated action.  None of the defendants
has yet responded to any of the complaints in the Cardinal
Health federal securities actions.


CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio consolidated the 14 class action complaints filed against
Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain officers, directors and
employees of the Company, under the caption "In RE Cardinal
Health ERISA Litigation."

Since July 2, 2004, 14 purported class action complaints have
been filed against the Company and certain officers, directors
and employees of the Company by purported participants in the
Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan
(collectively referred to as the "Cardinal Health ERISA
actions").  To date, all of these actions have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
These cases include:

     (1) David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 643),

     (2) Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 668),

     (3) James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.
         (04 CV 684),

     (4) Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 722),

     (5) Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         725),

     (6) Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 736),

     (7) Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
         et al. (04 CV 745),

     (8) Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         746),

     (9) Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         778),

    (10) Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         789),

    (11) Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         790),

    (12) Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         803),

    (13) Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         815), and

    (14) Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 828)

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing,
Retirement and Savings Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor ESSOP," and together with
the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan,
the "Plans"), and also on behalf of the Plans themselves.

The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"), generally asserting that the defendants
failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the Plans'
participants of investing in the Company's stock, to the
detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that
Company stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative for the Plans' participants.  The
misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions.  The complaints seek
unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the
defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On December 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were
consolidated into one action.  On January 14, 2005, the court
appointed lead counsel and liaison counsel for the consolidated
Cardinal Health ERISA action. None of the defendants has yet
responded to any of the complaints in the Cardinal Health ERISA
actions.


CHARLESTON AREA: Uninsured Initiate Price-Gouging Lawsuit in WV
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought by uninsured patients was filed
in West Virginia state court against Charleston Area Medical
Center, Inc. and its parent nonprofit corporation, Charleston
Area Medical Center Health System, Inc. (together, "CAMC") for
grossly overcharging uninsured patients, according to The
Scruggs Law Firm, P.A.

The suit also accuses CAMC of going after uninsured patients
with aggressive and abusive debt collection practices, placing
liens on homes, and even suing patients in court when they
cannot afford to pay the inflated bills.

The plaintiffs contend that CAMC's practices violate multiple
West Virginia laws. These laws include: contract laws mandating
fair and reasonable prices for the value of services provided;
the state Consumer Credit and Protection Act; and laws against
unjust enrichment.

The suit depicts CAMC's regular overcharging of uninsured
patients for medical services at rates that far exceed the
amount charged to all other patient groups. Moreover, these
inflated rates are concealed from an uninsured patient when he
or she is admitted to the hospital. CAMC forces these patients
to "consent" to pay all charges as they are being admitted-most
of the time under duress of pain and illness-without informing
them what those charges will be and that the prices bear no
rational relationship to the cost of the actual care they
receive.

John Crongeyer, an attorney with Vroon & Crongeyer who is
representing the plaintiffs, stated, "Charleston Area Medical
Center has clearly breached the community's trust in the most
egregious way. People assume that their local hospital-
especially a nonprofit hospital-is providing medical care to all
those who need it at rates that are reasonable and fair.
Charging uninsured patients, those who can least afford it,
outrageously inflated rates for necessary medical services is
deceptive and clearly unjust."

"The basis for which Charleston receives its tax exemption is to
provide charity care for those who can't afford to pay. This
hospital has woefully failed to live up to its obligation.

Further, by charging uninsured patients substantially more than
all other patients, Charleston is not only taking advantage of
the government and deceiving the community, it is getting a free
ride off of the taxpayers' backs. Though this lawsuit does not
challenge their tax-exempt status, Charleston's abusive
treatment of its uninsured patients is particularly
unconscionable and unfair in light of their 'charitable,' not-
for-profit mission. Their discriminatory billing practices
cannot and should not withstand scrutiny under state-law
standards. Charleston should direct its resources toward
remedying this wrong rather than attempting to justify practices
that have no rightful place in law or equity, that are not
necessary for the fiscal survival of this hospital, and that
have already failed such scrutiny in other state-law cases."

Charleston Area Medical Center is the flagship facility of the
CAMC Health System in Charleston, West Virginia. It is the
largest hospital in the state of West Virginia with over 900
beds.

The law firms representing the plaintiff are the Scruggs Law
Firm of Oxford, MS; Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP of Atlanta, GA;
Wilson Law Offices of Moundsville, WV; and the Law Offices of
David L. Meredith in Jackson, MS.

For more details, contact John Crongeyer of Vroon & Crongeyer
LLP by Phone: (404) 607-6713 OR Richard Scruggs of The Scruggs
Law Firm, P.A. by Phone: (662) 281-1212 or visit their Web site:
http://www.nfplitigation.com.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Shareholders Seek Review of Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former Company shareholders asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to vacate the final
order dismissing the securities class action and derivative
lawsuit filed against Computer Associates, Inc., its former
Chairman and certain of its officers and directors.

The Company, CEO Charles B. Wang, its former Chairman and CEO
Sanjay Kumar, and its Executive Vice President Russell M. Artzt
were named in several stockholder class action lawsuits, the
first of which was filed July 23, 1998.  The suits alleged that
a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's
Common Stock during the period from January 20, 1998 until July
22, 1998 were harmed by misleading statements,
misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's future
financial performance.  These cases, which sought monetary
damages, were consolidated into a single action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the
proposed class was certified, and discovery was completed.

Additionally, in February and March 2002, a number of
stockholder lawsuits were filed in the Federal Court against the
Company and Mr. Wang, Mr. Kumar, Ira H. Zar, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer, and in one instance, Mr. Artzt.
The lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that the
Company made misleading statements of material fact or omitted
to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were
made, not misleading in connection with the Company's financial
performance.  Each of the named individual plaintiffs in the
2002 lawsuits sought to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's Common Stock and call options and
sellers of put options for the period from May 28, 1999, through
February 25, 2002. The 2002 cases were consolidated, and the
Company's former independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, was
named as a defendant.

In addition, in May 2003, a class action lawsuit captioned "John
A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al."
was filed in the Federal Court.  The complaint in this matter, a
purported class action on behalf of the Computer Associates
Savings Harvest Plan (the "CASH Plan") and the participants in,
and beneficiaries of the CASH Plan for a class period running
from March 30, 1998, through May 30, 2003, asserted claims of
breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  The named defendants were the
Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the CASH Plan, the
Administrative Committee of the CASH Plan, and the following
current or former employees and/or directors of the Company:

     (1) Charles B. Wang;

     (2) Sanjay Kumar;

     (3) Ira Zar;

     (4) Russell M. Artzt;

     (5) Peter A. Schwartz;

     (6) Charles P. McWade; and

     (7) various unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH
         Plan

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

A derivative lawsuit was filed against certain current and
former directors of the Company, based on essentially the same
allegations as those contained in the February and March 2002
stockholder lawsuits discussed above.  This action was commenced
in April 2002 in Delaware Chancery Court, and an amended
complaint was filed in November 2002.  The defendants named in
the amended complaints were the Company as a nominal defendant,
current Company directors Messrs. Artzt, Lewis S. Ranieri, and
Alfonse M. D'Amato, and former Company directors Ms. Shirley
Strum Kenny and Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Willem de Vogel, Richard
Grasso, and Roel Pieper.

The derivative suit alleged breach of fiduciary duties on the
part of all the individual defendants and, as against the
current and former management director defendants, insider
trading on the basis of allegedly misappropriated confidential,
material information.  The amended complaints sought an
accounting and recovery on behalf of the Company of an
unspecified amount of damages, including recovery of the profits
allegedly realized from the sale of Common Stock of the Company.

On August 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of all
outstanding litigation related to the above-referenced
stockholder and derivative actions as well as the settlement of
an additional derivative action filed in the Federal Court in
connection with the settlement.  As part of the class action
settlement, which was approved by the Federal Court in December
2003, the Company agreed to issue a total of up to 5.7 million
shares of Common Stock to the shareholders represented in the
three class action lawsuits, including payment of attorneys'
fees.  In January 2004, approximately 1.6 million settlement
shares were issued along with approximately $3.3 million to the
plaintiffs' attorneys for attorney fees and related expenses.

In March 2004, approximately 0.2 million settlement shares were
issued to participants and beneficiaries of the CASH Plan.  On
October 8, 2004, the Federal Court signed an order approving the
distribution of the remaining 3.8 million settlement shares,
less administrative expenses.  The order was amended in December
2004.  The Company issued the remaining 3.8 million settlement
shares in December 2004.  Of the 3.8 million settlement shares,
approximately 51,000 were used for the payment of administrative
expenses in connection with the settlement, approximately 76,000
were liquidated for cash distributions to class members entitled
to receive a cash distribution and the remaining settlement
shares were distributed to class members entitled to receive a
distribution of shares.

In settling the derivative suit, which settlement was also
approved by the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company
committed to maintain certain corporate governance practices.
Under the settlement, the Company and the individual defendants
were released from any potential claim by shareholders relating
to accounting-related or other public statements made by the
Company or its agents from January 1998 through February 2002
(and from January 1998 through May 2003 in the case of the
employee ERISA action), and the individual defendants were
released from any potential claim by the Company or its
shareholders relating to the same matters.  Ernst & Young LLP is
not a party to the settlement.

The settlement was reviewed by the independent directors who
chair the Corporate Governance, Audit, and Compensation and
Human Resource Committees of the Board of Directors as well as
by all non-interested, independent directors who were not named
in any of the suits.  It was also approved by the Board's
independent directors.

On October 5 and December 9, 2004, two purported Company
shareholders filed motions to vacate the Order of Final Judgment
and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in
connection with the settlement of the derivative action.  These
motions primarily seek to void the releases that were granted to
the individual defendants under the settlement.  On December 7,
2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment and
Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in
connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder
lawsuits discussed above was filed by Sam Wyly and certain
related parties.  The motion seeks to reopen the settlement to
permit the moving shareholders to pursue individual claims
against certain present and former officers of the Company.  The
motion states that the moving shareholders do not seek to file
claims against the Company.  These motions are in the process of
being briefed and are currently scheduled to be submitted to the
Federal Court on March 11, 2005.


CROSS COUNTRY: FL Suits Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuits and the stockholder
derivative lawsuits previously filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District Court of Florida in
West Palm Beach filed against Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.,
certain executive officers and Board of Directors have all been
voluntary dismissed without prejudice by the respective
plaintiffs. The Company paid no consideration.

"We are extremely pleased with this outcome that the plaintiffs
determined not to proceed with their claims and that these
matters were resolved before we invested a lot of time or
resources," said Joseph A. Boshart, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. is a leading provider of
healthcare staffing services in the United States.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Named in Biovail Tiazac Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. was named as a defendant, together
with Biovail Corporation, in an action brought in the United
States District Court of the District of Columbia under the
caption "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. and Rochester
Drug Cooperative v. Biovail Corporation and Forest Laboratories,
Inc."

The complaint alleges attempts to monopolize (by attempting to
delay generic competition) under Section 2 of the Sherman Act
with respect to the product Tiazac resulting from Biovail's
January 2001 patent listing in the Food and Drug
Administration's "Orange Book" of Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.  Biovail withdrew the
Orange Book listing of the patent at issue following an April
2002 Consent Order between Biovail and the Federal Trade
Commission.

Biovail is the owner of the NDA covering Tiazac, which the
Company distributes in the United States under license from
Biovail.  The action, which purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Tiazac
directly from the Company from February 13, 2001 to the present,
seeks treble damages and related relief arising from the
allegedly unlawful acts.

In a related case, "Twin Cities Bakery Workers Health and
WelfareFund, Case No. 1:01CV02197, (D.D.C.)(JR)," in which the
Company is not a party, Biovail has filed a motion for summary
judgment on an issue which the Company believes would be
dispositive of the new action. That motion is awaiting oral
argument.

In January 2005 the State of Alabama filed an action against
approximately 75 manufacturers of pharmaceutical products,
including the Company, in an Alabama state court, Montgomery,
Alabama.  The action alleges essentially the same types of
claims which are described in the litigation section of the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2004 in the description of the litigation referenced
as "In re Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation."


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: To Seek Dismissal of MD Shareholder Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. intends to seek the dismissal of the
multidistrict litigation filed against it, certain of its
subsidiaries, certain Franklin Templeton mutual funds, current
and former officers, employees, and directors in the United
States District Court in Maryland.

Several shareholders suits were initially filed in different
federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and
Florida, alleging violations of various federal securities laws
and seeking, among other things, monetary damages and costs.
Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by
Company subsidiaries, resulting in alleged market timing
activity.  The lawsuits are styled as class actions, or
derivative actions on behalf of either the named Funds or the
Company.

Additionally, Franklin Templeton Investments Corporation
("FTIC") was recently served with a class action market timing
complaint in Quebec, Canada, entitled "Huneault v. AGF Funds,
Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-000256-046," filed on October 25,
2004 in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District
of Montreal.

To date, more than 240 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.  Because these cases
involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) ordered the creation of a
multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, entitled "In re Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation" (the "MDL").  The Judicial Panel then
transferred similar cases from different districts to the MDL
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

As of December 13, 2004, the following lawsuits are pending
against the Company (and in some instances, against certain of
the Funds) and have been transferred to the MDL:

     (1) Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-770 GPM, filed on November 19, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois;

     (2) Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-859 MJR, filed on December 16, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29,
         2004;

     (3) Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on February 6, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (4) Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (5) Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

     (6) Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No.
         8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on February 11, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

     (7) Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on February 12, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (8) Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on February 12, 2004, in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

     (9) McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0628 PJH, filed on February 13, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

    (10) Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on February 17, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (11) Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on February 18, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York;

    (12) D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et
         al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (13) Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (14) Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (15) Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

    (16) Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed on
         March 30, 2004 in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York

Plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on
September 29, 2004.  Hearing on the motions to dismiss is set
for June 2005.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its current
and former officers, employees, and directors, styled "In re
Franklin Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."

Multiple lawsuits were initially filed, alleging violations of
various securities laws and pendent state law claims relating to
the disclosure of directed brokerage payments and/or payment of
allegedly excessive advisory, commission, and distribution fees.
These lawsuits are styled as class actions and derivative
actions brought on behalf of certain Funds.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Stephen Alexander IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04-982 JLL, filed on March 2, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of New
         Jersey;

     (2) Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0883 SI, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (3) Tricarico v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-04-1052 JAP, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (4) Miller v. Franklin Mutual Advisors, LLC, et al., Case
         No. 04-261 DRH, filed on April 16, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey on August 5, 2004
         (plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action, without
         prejudice, on October 22, 2004);

     (5) Wilcox v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04-2258 WHW, filed on May 12, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (6) Bahe, Custodian CGM Roth Conversion IRA v.
         Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. et al., Case No.
         04-11195 PBS, filed on June 3, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
consolidated for pretrial purposes three of the above lawsuits
(Stephen Alexander IRA, Tricarico, and Wilcox) into a single
action, entitled "In re Franklin Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."
Plaintiffs in those three lawsuits filed a consolidated amended
complaint on October 4, 2004.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on November 19, 2004.  It is anticipated
that the matter will be heard in the coming months.


GENESIS MICROCHIP: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Microchip, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California to dismiss a putative
securities class action filed against it captioned "Kuehbeck v.
Genesis Microchip et al., Civil Action No. 02-CV-05344."  The
suit also names as defendants former Chief Executive Officer
Amnon Fisher, and former Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric
Erdman, and amended in July 2003 to include Executive Vice
President Anders Frisk.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the
Individual Defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Genesis's common stock between April 29, 2002 and
June 14, 2002.

The suit is styled "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc et al,
case no. 3:02-cv-05344," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.

Defendants are represented by Nina F. Locker, Ignacio E. Salceda
and Bahram Seyedin-Noor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300,
Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com,
bnoor@wsgr.com

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) William M. Audet and Ryan M. Hagan, Alexander Hawes &
         Audet, LLP, 152 North Third Street, Suite 600 San Jose,
         CA 95112, Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax: 408-287-1776, E-
         mail: waudet@alexanderlaw.com or
         rhagan@alexanderlaw.com

    (ii) Patricia I. Avery, Kent A. Bronson, Robert C. Finkel,
         and Marian P. Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax:
         212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com


GLOBUS MEDIA: FDA Warns Consumers To Avoid Home-Use Test Kits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not
to use unapproved home-use diagnostic test kits that have been
marketed nationwide via the Internet by Globus Media, Montreal,
Canada. The use of these products could result in false results
that could lead to significant adverse health consequences. The
illegal kits are labeled as:

     (1) Rapid HIV Test Kit

     (2) Rapid Syphilis Test Kit

     (3) One Step Cassette Style Cocaine Test

     (4) One Step Cassette Style Marijuana (THC) Test

     (5) One Step Cassette Style Amphetamine Test

     (6) Rapid Dengue Fever Test

     (7) One Step Midstream Style HCG Urine (Home) Pregnancy
         Test

FDA learned of the problem from two consumer complaints.  FDA
has not approved or evaluated the performance of any of Globus
Media's products. As a result, consumers cannot know with any
degree of certainty that test results are correct. For example,
a person testing positive for HIV (human immunodeficiency virus,
or the AIDS virus) using one of these tests may not be infected
with HIV, or, worse, someone infected with HIV may test negative
and not seek medical treatment or spread the virus to others.

The tests were sold through websites and distributed throughout
the U.S., usually by overnight delivery services. These have
been made available for sale on several websites, including
www.htkit.com  and www.hstkits.com . The kits usually are
contained in a paper envelope with instructions inside the
packaging. The envelope, instructions and packaging may not
accurately identify the manufacturer, packer or distributor. The
name of the kit appears on the instructions.

Consumers who have these products should not use them. Anyone
who has used one of these test kits should be retested using
valid test methods. Only one HIV home collection test system is
approved by FDA and legally sold in the United States. This
test, sold as either "The Home Access HIV-1 Test System" or "The
Home Access Express HIV-1 Test System" is manufactured by Home
Access Health Corporation and allows blood samples to be taken
at home which people then send to a laboratory for testing. No
home-use test kits intended for diagnosing syphilis and dengue
fever are approved for sale in the U.S.

The FDA has issued an import alert which alerts FDA field
personnel to the possible importation of the Globus Media
devices, provides guidance as to their detention and refusal of
admission into the U.S., and also advises U.S. Customs officials
about these products.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Amended Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology, Inc. and Acres Gaming
Incorporated asked the Clark County, Nevada District Court to
dismiss the third amended complaint filed against them,
designated as Case No. 470016.  The complaint alleged that Acres
directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders
in connection with the approval of the merger transaction
between Acres and the Company and sought to enjoin and/or void
the merger agreement among other forms of relief.

On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders
from voting on the merger.  On September 24, 2003, plaintiff
petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the
TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the
merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on
September 25, 2003.  The plaintiff's action also seeks damages.

On December 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.  On April 29, 2004, the
Court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  On May 12, 2004 the Court issued an
order denying defendants motion to dismiss.  Pursuant to
stipulation of the parties on August 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint.  Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  The Court has not yet
ruled on this motion.

The suit is styled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al,
case no. P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District
Court under Judge Michelle Leavitt.  Lawyer for lead plaintiff
Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein, while lawyer for the defendants
is Paul R. Hejmanowski.  The other defendants named in the suit
are:

     (1) Floyd W. Glisson

     (2) Todd L. Bice

     (3) Roger B. Hammock

     (4) Richard Furash

     (5) David R. Willensky

     (6) Robert W. Brown

     (7) Ronald G. Bennett


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Trial in NV Racketeering Suit Set Sept. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial in the consolidated lawsuit filed against
International Game Technology, Inc. and other video poker and
electronic slot machine operators is set for September 12,2005
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

The class action lawsuits were initially filed: one filed in the
US District Court of Nevada, entitled "Larry Schreier v. Caesars
World, Inc., et al," and two filed in the US District Court of
Florida, entitled "Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., et al." and
"Ahern v. Caesars World, Inc., et al."  They have been
consolidated into a single action.  The Court granted the
defendants' motion to transfer venue of the consolidated action
to Las Vegas.

The actions allege that the defendants have engaged in
fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play
video poker machines and electronic slot machines, based on
false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and the extent
to which there is an opportunity to win on a given play.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and
unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special, incidental
and punitive damages of several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have
stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  The
defendants filed their consolidated answer to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint in February 1998.  In March 2002, the Court
directed that certain merits discovery could proceed. In June
2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  An appeal of that denial was filed timely with
the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  All briefings
were completed and oral arguments were heard in January 2004.
On August 10, 2004, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld US District Court Judge Roger Hunt in
his denial of class certification.  The class plaintiffs did not
appeal the decision and are proceeding with only their
individual claims.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: Seeking Dismissal of PA Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Laboratories is asking the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to dismiss consolidated lawsuit
filed against it and all members of its board of directors,
styled "In re Mylan Laboratories, Inc. Shareholder Litigation."

On November 22, 2004, an individual purporting to be a Company
shareholder, filed a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alleging that the Board
members had breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
planned acquisition of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("King") and
by declining to dismantle the Company's anti-takeover defenses
to permit an auction of the Company to Carl Icahn or other
potential buyers of the Company, and also alleging that certain
transactions between the Company and its directors (or their
relatives or companies with which they were formerly affiliated)
may have been wasteful.  On November 23, 2004, a substantially
identical complaint was filed in the same court by another
purported Company shareholder.

The actions are styled as shareholder derivative suits on behalf
of the Company and class actions on behalf of all Company
shareholders, and have been consolidated by the court.  On
January 19, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaints to add
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Richard C. Perry,
Perry Corp., American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, and "John
Does 1-100" as additional defendants, and to add claims
regarding trading activity by the additional defendants and the
implications on Mylan Labs' shareholder rights agreement. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and
undisclosed damages.  Mylan Labs' and its directors' preliminary
objections seeking dismissal of the complaints are pending
before the court.


NASSDA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for CA Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nassda Corporation reached a settlement for the securities class
action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint asserts claims against
the Company, Sang S. Wang, An-Chang Deng, Tammy Shu-Hua Liu and
Yen-Son Huang on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased Company stock between December 13, 2001 and June 11,
2004.

The consolidated class action alleges that the named defendants
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading representations
in press releases and financial statements filed with the SEC
relating to our financial results.  The complaint's allegations
derive from allegations contained in the complaint concerning
the 053 Patent, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January
3,2005) reports.

On November 4, 2004, the judge granted the motion of NECA-IBEW
Pension Fund for appointment as lead plaintiff.  In late January
2005, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve
this matter for a payment to the class of $9.0 million.  The
settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval of the
Court.

The suit is styled "Nowak v. Nassda Corporation, et al.," filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Susan Ilston.

Representing the Company and the other defendants is Kelley
Elizabeth Moohr of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, A
Professional Corporation, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
kmoohr@wsgr.com.

The lead plaintiff is the NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur
Plan).  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth Aida Acevedo, and Lesley Weaver, Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine
         Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, Phone: 415 288-4545 E-
         mail: eacevedo@milberg.com or lesleyw@milberg.com

     (2) Tricia Lynn McCormick, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: triciam@lerachlaw.com


NEW JERSEY: Dam Owners Are To Blame For Burlington County Floods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dam owners, not torrential rains, are to blame for the
widespread damage caused by flooding in Burlington County, New
Jersey last July, according to families and businesses who have
filed lawsuits, the 1010 Wins reports.

Fourteen families and three business in Lumberton have filed
lawsuits since last month against the owners of the dams that
burst after more than a foot of rain fell in some spots on July
12, 2004. Two similar lawsuits have also been filed last year
against dam owners, which include towns, homeowners associations
and a nonprofit group that runs a camp.

According to the plaintiffs, all of whom are seeking class-
action status for their suits, the dams should not be rebuilt,
if their owners will not take responsibility for the damage.

Lorraine Kinkler, an owner of the Lumberton Post & Deli, told
The Philadelphia Inquirer that the flooding cost her $30,000 to
$40,000 in damage to her business. "Everything was underwater,"
said Ms. Kinkler, one of the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit.
"Things kept breaking down. It would really help financially to
recoup some of this money, which, every time I turn around,
we're spending."

The town of Medford Lakes, a community, which is the most prone
area of some of the biggest dam bursts, is a prime defendant in
the court cases. The borough and the Medford Lakes Colony Club
are using low-interest loans from the state to rebuild a task
they project could take until 2008 to finish.


NORTH SHORE: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Shore Gas Company and the Peoples Gas Light and Coke
Company asked the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois to
dismiss a class action filed against them by Stephen Alport, a
Peoples Gas customer, alleging, among other things, violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
related to matters at issue in Peoples Gas' gas reconciliation
proceedings. The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

On September 22, 2004, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all
counts against Peoples Gas. On October 21, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint against the Company. On November 22,
2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The court has yet to rule on the motion.


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certain of its executive officers and
the members of its board of directors face several purported
shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during certain
periods in 2004, which periods differ in the various complaints.
The complaints allege that defendants have made material
misstatements concerning the survival benefit associated with
Tarceva and the size of Tarceva's potential market upon the
FDA's approval of the drug.  The complaints allege violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaints seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


SIEMENS MEDICAL: Reaches $14.4M Settlement For Suit Over Bonuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corp. has agreed to
pay more than $14.4 million to settle a class action suit
brought by workers who said their incentive-based bonuses were
unfairly reduced in 1998, The Legal Intelligencer reports.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, a class of about
1,200 current and former employees of the Pennsylvania-based
medical software company will be paid from a fund of more than
$10.1 million and will receive a net recovery of the full amount
of the adjustment to their 1998 compensation. Furthermore, SMS
has also agreed to pay up to $4.33 million in attorney fees and
costs to the team of lawyers who brought the suit namely: Steven
A. Schwartz of Chimicles & Tikellis in Haverford, Pennsylvania,
and E. Powell Miller of Miller Shea in Rochester, Michigan.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement, clearing the way for the
lawyers to send notices to the class members. He has also
scheduled a fairness hearing for May 5 to hear any objections to
the settlement or the proposed attorney fees.

The suit, entitled, Street v. Siemens Medical Solutions Health
Services Corp., workers alleged that SMS breached their contract
by instituting a 30 percent across-the-board reduction of their
1998 bonuses. They also alleged a claim under Pennsylvania's
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Michael L. Banks and Azeez Hayne of Morgan Lewis & Bockius in
Philadelphia and Erik Haas of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler of
New York, attorneys for SMS, told the Intelligencer that the
company's senior management had the right to reduce the employee
bonuses, called "incentive compensation plans," at any time.


STIHL INC.: Recalls 45,000 Multi-Task Tools Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stihl Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 45,000 KombiSystem Multi-Task Tools.

An internal clip may become dislodged and as a result, the
clutch shoes could be projected from the clutch housing and
strike consumers, posing the risk of injury. Stihl has received
no reports of incidents.

The recalled product is a KombiSystem Multi-Task Tool powerhead,
Models KM55, KM55R, KM55RC, FS55T or FS55RT. The recalled
models, which have "Stihl" printed on the engine head, have
serial numbers lower than 263868001 which can be found on the
engine head. The product is a powerhead that can be fitted with
attachments for a variety of tasks, including edging, trimming
and sweeping.

Manufactured in the United States, the tools were sold at all
authorized Stihl dealers for between $180 and $210. The FS
models were sold between October 2001 and October 2002 and the
KM models were sold between September 2002 and October 2004.

Consumers should stop using this multi-task tool immediately and
return it to an authorized Stihl dealer for a free repair.

Consumer Contact: Call Stihl Inc. at (800) 610-6677 between 7
a.m. and 8 p.m. ET or visit Stihl's Web site:
http://www.stihlusa.com.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action filed against it and certain
of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws (collectively referred to as the "Syncor
federal securities actions").

Eleven suits were initially filed, namely:

     (1) Richard Bowe v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8560 LGB (RCx) (C.D. Cal.),

     (2) Alan Kaplan v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8575 CBM (MANx) (C.D. Cal),

     (3) Franklin Embon, Jr. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No.
         CV 02-8687 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal),

     (4) Jonathan Alk v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8841 GHK (RZx) (C.D. Cal),

     (5) Joyce Oldham v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-8972
         FMC (RCx) (C.D. Cal),

     (6) West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund v. Syncor
         Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-9076 NM (RNBx) (C.D.
         Cal),

     (7) Brad Lookingbill v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV
         02-9248 RSWL (Ex) (C.D. Cal),

     (8) Them Luu v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9583
         RGK (JwJx) (C.D. Cal),

     (9) David Hall v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9621
         CAS (CWx) (C.D. Cal),

    (10) Phyllis Walzer v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-
         9640 RMT (AJWx) (C.D. Cal), and

    (11) Larry Hahn v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 03-52 LGB
         (RCx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares during various
periods, beginning as early as March 30, 2000 and ending as late
as November 5, 2002.  The actions allege, among other things,
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of press releases and public
filings disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's
international business, but omitting mention of certain
allegedly improper payments to Syncor's foreign customers,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor shares.

A lead plaintiff has been appointed by the Court in the Syncor
federal securities actions, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed May 19, 2003, naming Syncor and 12 individuals, all
former Syncor officers, directors and/or employees, as
defendants. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money
damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants.

Syncor filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on August 1, 2003, and on December 12, 2003, the Court
granted the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. A second
amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on January
28, 2004, naming Syncor and 14 individuals, all former Syncor
officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants. Syncor
filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated class
action complaint on March 4, 2004. On July 6, 2004, the Court
granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as to
defendants Syncor, Monty Fu, Robert Funari and Haig Bagerdjian.
As to the other individual defendants, the Motion to Dismiss was
granted with prejudice. On September 14, 2004, the lead
plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of the Court's July
6, 2004 dismissal order.  The court clarified its July 6, 2004
dismissal order on November 29, 2004 and lead plaintiff filed a
third amended consolidated complaint on December 29, 2004.
Syncor filed a motion to dismiss the third amended consolidated
complaint on January 31, 2005, which motion is pending.


THOMSON CONSUMER: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Ask Judge For More Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit settlement over defective television
sets, the lawyers who represented class action members, who were
waiting for justice in the form of a properly tuned television
set, asking more money than $2.3 million, which Madison County
Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis had awarded them, the Madison
County Record reports.

In the original settlement that was reached last May, Thomson
Consumer Electronics agreed to pay $6.9 million in attorney fees
for a case involving allegations of faulty audio in its Proscan
TV sets. However, when the judge reduced attorney fees by two-
thirds, class counsel, David Nester of Nester & Constance of
Belleville and John Carey of Carey & Danis of St. Louis, filed
supplemental applications for fees and costs.

In the mean time, class member Rich Dygert of New Hartford,
N.Y., hasn't received anything from the settlement. He told the
Madison County Record, "Every time we turn on the set, within
one-to-two minutes, the screen turns to snow. My cat runs like
hell straight to the basement every time this happens, not to
mention my wife screaming for a new TV." Mr. Dygert, who is a
mechanical engineer, also said that the only way to get the
picture and sound back to normal on his Proscan TV "is to bang
on the top of the set." Mr. Dygert filled out his claim form and
mailed it to TAL Claims Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota on
January 26, 2004, and still has received nothing let alone a
response.

Commenting on the judge's decision regarding the attorney's
fees, John Carey of Carey & Danis told the Record, "The judge
has it in his discretion to reduce attorney fees and costs under
Illinois class action laws."

Late last month, attorneys for the class withdrew their
application for an award of additional attorney fees stating the
court refuses to award additional fees to the class.

When Judge Kardis denied the plaintiff's attorney's motion for
supplemental fees on August 11, 2004, he said, "The court is
amazed that plaintiffs' counsel have chosen to completely ignore
previous directives of this court. Not only is the court's order
not discussed, it is not even mentioned. The court will NOT base
a contingent attorney's fee on possible payments, i.e., as much
as $27 million." He further pointed out that the attorneys were
already more than amply awarded at $2.3 million, noting that at
$250 per hour for 1,000 hours billed would only amount to
$250,000, the Record reports.

James Stalcup and Mary Gick had filed the class action suit in
Madison County on February 15, 2002 over defective RCA, GE, and
Proscan television sets, which were manufactured by Thomson
Consumer Electronics.

The complaint alleged that the televisions Thomson manufactured
between 1998 and 2000 had a serious defect that caused total
audio failure in the television's circuitry. The complaint also
alleged that the total audio disruptions cause the television to
exhibit characteristics and symptoms so that no matter what
remedy is attempted to adjust the sound, nothing cures the
problem except unplugging the television.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the class members have
been out a substantial amount of money and all temporary repairs
have been unsuccessful with the average cost to replace the
defective part in the set is between $100-$200. The class itself
has also alleged that Thomson was fully aware of the defect at
the time of the manufacture and engaged in conduct to minimize
and conceal the defect. They are also alleging that Thompson's
Customer Service representatives have "feigned ignorance" about
the defect and stated there was nothing the company could do.

On May 24, 2004 Judge Kardis approved the settlement of the
claims, which provides complete cash refunds for all customers
who incurred out-of-pocket expenses for repairs related to audio
loss, as well as purchase certificates for other class members
who did not have to spend money for repairs.

Damages were sought for fraud, breach of warranty, violations of
consumer protection acts of all 50 states and punitive damages
from the company for its alleged "outrageous, unconscionable,
and indefensible conduct of concealment" of the audio problem.


TRANE AND AMERICAN: Recalls 18,200 Heating Units For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane and American Standard, divisions of American Standard
Inc., of Tyler, Texas is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 18,200 Trane and American Standard Gas-Electric
heating/cooling units.

A gas leak can occur if there is a crack in the gas valve body
near the inlet pipe connection. A build-up of gas in the burner
compartment of the unit could occur, which could be ignited by
an internal spark. Trane has received five reports of gas valve
cracks, though no injuries or property damage has been reported.

The recalled units include 2 through 5-ton Trane and American
Standard heating and air conditioning packaged units. Affected
units are combination gas heat and air conditioning systems
installed outdoors only. Gas furnaces installed indoors are not
included in this recall. The units have identification plates
displaying the model number; serial number; and the year, month
and day of manufacture. The plate is located on one end of the
unit. The first four digits of all serial numbers indicate the
year, fiscal week and day of manufacture. The recall includes:

     (1) All units with model numbers beginning with YCP or YCX,
         and having serial numbers beginning with 3383 through
         4475;

     (2) All units with model number beginning with YCY or YCZ,
         and having serial numbers beginning with 4282 through
         4475.

Manufactured in the United States, the recalled units
Independent dealers and installers sold these units between
October 2003 and December 2004.

Consumers with recalled units are being contacted by the
independent dealers that installed them. Consumers who think
they have recalled units and have not yet been contacted, should
call their installer for more information. Using their model and
serial numbers, consumers also can visit the firms' Web sites to
confirm if their unit is included in the recall. Consumers with
recalled units should contact their installer to arrange for a
free inspection.

Consumer Contact: Contact Trane/American Standard toll-free at
(888) 556-0125 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit http://www.trane.comor
http://www.americanstandardair.com.


UNITED STATES: Law Firms Launch Securities Litigation Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Baron & Budd, P.C. and LeBlanc & Waddell, LLP
are pleased to announce the launch of
http://www.securitiesactions.com,an informative site devoted to
the firms' securities fraud litigation practices.

Baron & Budd, P.C. and LeBlanc & Waddell, LLP have teamed
together to represent institutional and individual investors
whose investments have been damaged by securities fraud. By
combining our firms' collective strengths and experience in
litigating large, complex cases, we offer our clients legal
representation built on a solid foundation of success.

Securities fraud class actions level the playing field between
large corporations and their defrauded investors. In a typical
securities fraud case, a publicly traded company makes positive
statements about their earnings, sales expectations, or new
products that cause the company's stock price to rise. Later,
these statements are revealed to be untrue and the stock price
falls dramatically. Our securities fraud attorneys represent
investors seeking to recover the money they lost after the fraud
is revealed and the stock price falls.

For more details, contact Baron & Budd, P.C. by Phone:
1-800-222-2766 or visit http://www.baronandbudd.comor LeBlanc &
Waddell, LLP, by visiting their Web site:
http://www.leblancwaddell.com.


UNITED STATES: MassMutual Applauds Passage Of S.5 Reform Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
MassMutual Financial Group applauded the U.S. Senate for its
passage of the Class Action Fairness Act, also known as S.5 by
an overwhelming, bipartisan 72-26 margin, clearing the way for a
House of Representatives vote on the bill expected this week.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) has
been a strong advocate of the Act since it emerged four years
ago as perhaps the most significant piece of legal reform
legislation in more than a decade. "This legislation would
reform an out-of-control class-action system that only weakens
our economy and inhibits our global competitiveness," said
MassMutual Chairman, President and CEO Robert J. O'Connell, who
has served as an active leader in the business community's fight
for class action reform. "We urge the House to pass this bill
next week, and send it to the president for signature."

In its support of Senate passage, MassMutual, a key participant
in the debate for class-action reform, acknowledged the critical
roles of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and key
Senators including Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); Orrin Hatch (R-
Utah); John Cornyn (R-Texas); Tom Carper (D-Del.); Herb Kohl (D-
Wis.); Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.); and Diane Feinstein (D-
Calif.), all of whom forged a bipartisan effort to pass the
bill.

The Class Action Fairness Act would result in class-action
lawsuits with plaintiffs from multiple states being heard in
federal court, thereby eliminating the current abusive "venue
shopping" by lawyers seeking the most plaintiff-friendly or
"magnet" jurisdictions.

"The Act would ensure that multi-state class actions will be
heard in federal district court, rather than a court chosen as
most favorable by the trial lawyers," O'Connell said.

"With positive action by the House next week, the Act will be
just a presidential pen-stroke away from becoming law, achieving
the meaningful reform all Americans, small business owners and
consumers rightfully deserve," O'Connell added.

MassMutual Financial Group is a global, growth-oriented
diversified financial services organization providing life
insurance, annuities, disability income insurance, long term
care insurance, retirement planning products, structured
settlement annuities, trust services, money management, and
other financial products and services.

The MassMutual Financial Group is a marketing designation (or
fleet name) for Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and
its affiliates, which include OppenheimerFunds, Inc.; Babson
Capital Management LLC; Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers LLC;
MML Investors Services, Inc.; The MassMutual Trust Company, FSB,
Antares Capital Corporation; MML Bay State Life Insurance
Company; C.M. Life Insurance Company; and MassMutual
International, Inc. MassMutual is on the Internet at
http://www.massmutual.com.


UNITED STATES: Study Reveals Securities Settlements On The Rise
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a newly released study by the National Economic Research
Associates Inc., hefty investor losses cited in securities class
action lawsuits drove settlements to unprecedented levels in
2004, the BI Daily News reports.

According to the study, entitled: "Recent Trends in Shareholder
Class Action Litigation: Bear Market Cases Bring Big
Settlements," which was released by the New York-based research
and consulting firm, settlement amounts jumped 33% last year,
from $20.3 million in 2003 to $27.1 million in 2004. Elaine
Buckberg, vp-NERA Economic Consulting also adds, "The huge
settlements in the fourth quarter really tipped the scales."

The NERA study pointed out that in 2004, settlements by WorldCom
Inc., Raytheon Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. rank among the
eight largest securities class action settlements in history,
with a combined value of more than $3.3 billion. The higher
settlements, according to the study are largely attributable to
increased payouts to investors suffering losses from a
securities case. The study also revealed that shareholder losses
in an average settlement grew from $140 million on average in
1996 to $1.7 billion in 2004, having peaked at $2.5 billion in
2003.

Meanwhile, the NERA study noted that the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, has had no impact on settlement value, but has prompted the
inclusion of corporate governance standards in settlement terms.

Additional findings included in the study are:

     (1) Securities class action filings continue to be most
         prevalent among the 2nd and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts,
         largely concentrated in New York and California.

     (2) Since 1995, the annual likelihood of a suit has
         increased overall by 23%, from 1.6% to a 2.0% chance
         each year. If the 2004 filing rate continues, the
         average public corporation now has a 10% chance of
         experiencing at least one shareholder class action suit
         every five years.

     (3) The health services industry sector on average pays
         "markedly different settlements than other industries,"
          the study said. Settlements involving companies in
          this sector are typically one-third higher than
          settlements involving companies in other industries.


VIOXX LITIGATION: OH Resident Files Suit V. Drug's Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bell, resident of Powhatan Point, Ohio filed a class
action lawsuit against the manufacturers of Vioxx, the wtov9.com
reports.

In a complaint filed with the Belmont County Common Pleas, Mr.
Bell alleges that the drug may have led to a massive heart
attack that killed his wife, Denise, last June. Furthermore, the
suit claims that Vioxx may have caused Mr. Bell to suffer a
stroke that caused permanent physical injury.

As previously reported in the October 7, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Merck & Co. withdrew its Vioxx arthritis
pain medicine due to new data from a three-year clinical trial,
which revealed that patients taking Vioxx for more than 18
months have double the risk of heart attack and stroke, compared
to those taking a placebo. Until that recall, the company had
constantly defended Vioxx, its $2.5 billion-a year medicine for
arthritis and acute pain, even after several earlier studies
raised safety questions. Merck also said that the data showing
the increased risk of cardiovascular complications began 18
months after patients began taking Vioxx at a 25-milligram dose
once daily.

Peter S. Kim, president of Merck research labs, said at a recent
press conference that 7.5 patients out of 1,000 taking the
placebo had a heart attack or stroke after 18 months, while 15
patients out of 1,000 taking Vioxx had a heart attack or stroke
during the same 18 months.

The Company also revealed that 84 million patients have used
Vioxx worldwide since it was introduced. Kenneth Frazier,
Merck's general counsel, said that "numerous lawsuits alleging
personal injury" have been filed against the Company by Vioxx
users, including two proposed class-action lawsuits that are
pending.

The lawsuit claims that Both Thomas Bell and his wife, who had
used Vioxx for more than a year to treat pain, would not have
used prescription Vioxx had the manufacturer been forthcoming
about dangerous side effects. Thus, according to the suit, which
has been moved to federal court, the plaintiff is asking for
compensation for his injuries, the death of his wife and medical
expenses.


WAL-MART STORES: Lawsuit Lodged Over Defective Bicycles in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been initiated against Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. and a California company for importing defective
bicycles that injured at least nine children, the Associated
Press reports.

Filed in Marin County Superior Court, the suit alleges that Wal-
Mart conspired with San Rafael-based importer Dynacraft
Industries and investigator Carl Warren & Co. to cover up the
fact that the front wheels of the bicycles can easily detach
after hitting a bump, causing serious injuries. The suit claims
that at least nine children sustained injuries ranging from
broken teeth to head trauma.

Mark Webb, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the San
Francisco Chronicle, "I have nine individual plaintiffs from all
over the country - who got these bicycles for birthdays or
Christmas - who went over a bump and the wheel came off. In each
case, they reported it to Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart continues to
sell the product. These bikes are out there still being used by
kids who don't know what they are riding."

The suit also claims that Dynacraft Industries imported the Next
brand bicycles from China and Carl Warren investigated
complaints.  A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said she had not seen
the lawsuit and therefore could not comment, while no one from
Dynacraft was available for comment, according to AP.



              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


February 17-19, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING
American Bar Association
Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

February 22-23, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2005: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 28 - March 1, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 28 - March 1, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 1, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXPOSURES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 3-4, 2005
TRANSPORTATION MEGACONFERENCE VII
American Bar Association
New Orleans, LA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 3-4 , 2005
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Coral Gables
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 7-8, 2005
CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 14-15, 2005
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect
The Plaza New York, New York
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-436-6094

March 18, 2005
CONFERENCE ON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
American Bar Association
New York
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 21, 2005
FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 21, 2005
MOTOR VEHICHLE LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 21-22, 2005
AIRLINE RESTRUCTURING
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 31-April 1, 2005
THE 4TH INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conferences
The Warwick New York Hotel, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 4-5, 2005
MANAGED CARE LIABILITY
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 7-8, 2005
THE 4TH NATIONAL ADVANCED GUIDE TO CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION
AND CLASS
ACTIONS
American Conferences
Le Meridien , Chicago, IL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 11-12, 2005
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 18-19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 11, 2005
BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 16-17, 2005
RUN-OFFS SEMINAR
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16-17, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
DRUG LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu


JulY 28 - 29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

February 01-28, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444


TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR
CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


ATHEROGENICS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Atherogenics, Inc. (Nasdaq:AGIX) ("AGIX" or
the "Company") from September 28, 2004 and December 31, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AGIX, Russell Medford, Mark Colonnese, and
Robert Scott with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company hyped the results of an inconclusive
         and limited study of AGI-1067;

     (2) that the statistically impressive levels of plaque
         reduction, described by AGIX in the initial
         announcement, varied significantly from the results
         achieved by the Cleveland Clinic;

     (3) that the Company was burning cash at a high rate; and

     (4) that the Company manipulated the study's results in
         order to enter into a strategic partnership with a
         major pharmaceutical company to complete the
         development and commercialization of AGI-1067.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. ("Charlotte Russe") (NASDAQ: CHIC)
publicly traded securities during the period between October 23,
2003 and December 6, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Charlotte Russe and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Charlotte Russe depicted itself as a
rapidly growing mall-based speciality retailer of fashionable,
value-based apparel and accessories targeting young women
between the ages of 15 and 35. Charlotte Russe operates two
retailing concepts: Charlotte Russe, which comprises 80 percent
of the Company's business, and Rampage, which comprises 20
percent of the Company's business.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Charlotte Russe's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
statements about the Company's turnaround initiatives. The true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (1) the Company's merchandise was receiving very poor
         acceptance by consumers in favor of the Company's
         competitors;

     (2) the Company's attempted "turnaround" of its Rampage
         stores was a disaster;

     (3) the Company's inventory was grossly overvalued and its
         new product line had received disastrous reviews which
         defendants knew would result in declining margins and
         revenues in current and future quarters;

     (4) the Company's top creative personnel and merchants had
         fled the Company, leaving the Company in a state of
         decay;

     (5) the Company's turnaround initiatives, including its
         repositioning of Rampage, proved to be a disaster;

     (6) any positive effects from its initiatives would take a
         longer time to impact the Company's operations;

     (7) the Company did not anticipate comparable same store
         sales increases for Q4, but rather, expected a decline
         in comparable same store sales;

     (8) Rampage, which comprised only 20 percent of the
         Company, had been performing so poorly that this factor
         alone would negatively impact Charlotte Russe's Q4
         earnings by $0.14; and

     (9) as a result, the Company's earnings guidance for Q4 of
         2004 of $0.28 to $0.32 per share was grossly
         overstated; in fact, the Company would ultimately
         adjust its forecast drastically downward to $0.11 to
         $0.31 per share.

On December 6, 2004, after the markets closed, Charlotte Russe
announced another executive departure and a dramatic reduction
in Q1 2005 earnings forecasts. On this news, Charlotte Russe's
stock collapsed to as low as $8.84 per share.

For more details, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. of Finkelstein
& Krinsk, LLP by Phone: 877-493-5366 by Fax: 619-238-5425 or by
E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Direct General
Corporation (Nasdaq: DRCT)("Direct General" or the "Company")
securities during the period between August 11, 2003 and January
26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws through the Company's financial statements and
defendants' disclosures throughout the Class Period. The
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading in that Direct General was failing to properly adjust
for loss reserves in light of a change in Florida legislation
that related to personal injury protection coverage in Florida
that was signed into law on July 11, 2003.

On January 26, 2005, over 15 months after the passage of the
Florida law, Direct General shocked the market by announcing
that it had not previously increased its loss reserves in light
of its exposure under Florida law, and, as a result, would be
required to increase its loss reserves by $11 million pre-tax.

Direct General's shares reacted negatively to this news and fell
to $19.61, down 31% from a previous closing price at $28.49.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Or Max Jodry
of BARON & BUDD, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-222-2766 or by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com.


HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of Hypercom Corporation (NYSE:
HYC)("Hypercom" or the "Company") securities during the period
between April 30, 2004 and February 3, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws through the issuance of a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market which caused their
securities to trade at artificially inflated market prices. On
February 4, 2005, the Company issued a press release stating
that leases originated during the Class Period by the Company's
UK subsidiary, Hypercom EMEA, Inc., were improperly accounted
for as "sales-type leases, rather than operating leases." This
error applied to approximately 3,200 leases, and as a result of
this, the Company had to restate its net revenues for the first
three quarters of 2004. The Company currently estimates that the
net revenue for nine months ending September 30, 2004 will
decrease up to $4.0 million, and the operating profit for the
same period will decrease by approximately 65 to 75% of the
amount of the net revenue reduction.

This news shocked the market. Shares of Hypercom fell $1.00, or
18.32%, to close at $4.46 per share on unusually high trading
volume.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Or Max Jodry
of BARON & BUDD, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-222-2766 or by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager White & Goldstein, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of OfficeMax Inc. ("OfficeMax" or the
"Company") (NYSE:OMX) between January 22, 2004 and January 11,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that OfficeMax and certain of its officers
and directors issued false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's earnings, thereby violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. It further alleges that the defendants
recklessly disregarded, concealed or misrepresented the
following facts from the investing public:

     (1) for at least two years, millions of dollars of sales
         were fraudulently recorded as legitimate;

     (2) the Company was using monies paid by suppliers (e.g.,
         for promotions, discounts and rebates) to manipulate
         the Company's earnings; and

     (3) the Company lacked internal controls, resulting in
         revenue reports that violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

As a result, OfficeMax shares were materially inflated during
the Class Period. On December 16, 2004, the share price had
increased to $32.52, whereby the Company's top officers and
directors arranged to sell nearly $1.5 billion worth of the
Company's notes.

On January 12, 2005, OfficeMax announced that its chief
financial officer had resigned. Further, OfficeMax stated that
it would postpone the release of its fourth quarter and full-
year 2004 earnings pending the conclusion of an internal
investigation relating to its accounting for vendor income.

For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein by Mail: 2825
University Drive, Suite 350, Coral Springs, FL 33065 by Phone:
954-341-0844 or 866-274-8258 or by E-mail:
jgoldstein@mwg-law.com.


PFIZER INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of employees and former
employees of Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE:PFE) ("Pfizer" or the "Company")
who maintained investments in Pfizer stock in their individual
accounts under the Pfizer Savings Plan and the Pfizer Savings
Plan for Employees Resident in Puerto Rico and certain
predecessor plans involving Warner Lambert and other entities
("Plans"), at any time from January 1, 2000 to December 20,
2004.

Defendants include Pfizer, the Savings Plan Committee and the
fiduciaries of the Plan, including various officers and
directors of Pfizer. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven of the Law Offices Of
Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Phone: (410) 332-0030 or by E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Sheperd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of
Sipex Corporation (Nasdaq: SIPX) ("Sipex" or the "Company")
during the period April 10, 2003 and January 20, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint charges Sipex, Douglas M. McBurnie, Walid
Maghribi, Phillip A. Kagel and Clyde R. Wallin with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known by the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized revenue on
         sales for which price protection, stock rotation and/or
         return rights were granted;

     (2) that Sipex's financial results were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On January 20, 2005, the Company announced that it may restate
its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2003 and the fiscal quarters ended April 3, 2004, July 3, 2004
and October 2, 2004, due to the possible improper recognition of
revenue during these periods on sales for which price
protection, stock rotation and/or return rights may have been
granted. On this news, shares of Sipex fell $0.90 per share, or
23.44 percent, on January 21, 2005, to close at $2.94 per share
on unusually high volume.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone:
866-540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com OR
James C. Shah, Esq. by Phone: 877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *